MR. A. MOHIUDDIN,MANGALORE vs. ACIT, MANGALORE

In the result, the appeals of the assessees in ITA

Bench: Shri Sunil Kumar Yadav & Shri S. Jayaraman

deemed dividend. Therefore, no addition u/s. 2(22)(e) is called for. We, therefore, set aside the order of the CIT(Appeals) and delete the addition in this regard. 48. Ground Nos.3.1 to 3.3 relate to the addition on account of disallowance

MR. A. MOHIUDDIN,,MANGALORE vs. THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX,, MANGALORE

In the result, the appeals of the assessees in ITA

Bench: Shri Sunil Kumar Yadav & Shri S. Jayaraman

deemed dividend. Therefore, no addition u/s. 2(22)(e) is called for. We, therefore, set aside the order of the CIT(Appeals) and delete the addition in this regard. 48. Ground Nos.3.1 to 3.3 relate to the addition on account of disallowance

MR. A. MOHIUDDIN,MANGALORE vs. ACIT, MANGALORE

In the result, the appeals of the assessees in ITA

Bench: Shri Sunil Kumar Yadav & Shri S. Jayaraman

deemed dividend. Therefore, no addition u/s. 2(22)(e) is called for. We, therefore, set aside the order of the CIT(Appeals) and delete the addition in this regard. 48. Ground Nos.3.1 to 3.3 relate to the addition on account of disallowance

MR. A. MOHIUDDIN,MANGALORE vs. ACIT, MANGALORE

In the result, the appeals of the assessees in ITA

Bench: Shri Sunil Kumar Yadav & Shri S. Jayaraman

deemed dividend. Therefore, no addition u/s. 2(22)(e) is called for. We, therefore, set aside the order of the CIT(Appeals) and delete the addition in this regard. 48. Ground Nos.3.1 to 3.3 relate to the addition on account of disallowance

MRS. SHAHANAZ MOHIUDDIN,MANGALORE vs. ACIT, MANGALORE

In the result, the appeals of the assessees in ITA

Bench: Shri Sunil Kumar Yadav & Shri S. Jayaraman

deemed dividend. Therefore, no addition u/s. 2(22)(e) is called for. We, therefore, set aside the order of the CIT(Appeals) and delete the addition in this regard. 48. Ground Nos.3.1 to 3.3 relate to the addition on account of disallowance

ACIT, MANGALORE vs. MRS. SHAHANAZ MOHIUDDIN, MANGALORE

In the result, the appeals of the assessees in ITA

Bench: Shri Sunil Kumar Yadav & Shri S. Jayaraman

deemed dividend. Therefore, no addition u/s. 2(22)(e) is called for. We, therefore, set aside the order of the CIT(Appeals) and delete the addition in this regard. 48. Ground Nos.3.1 to 3.3 relate to the addition on account of disallowance

MICROFINISH VALVES PRIVATE LIMITED,HUBLI vs. ASST.C.I.T., HUBLI

In the result, the assessee’s appeal for Assessment Year 2011-12 is partly allowed

Bench: Shri N. V. Vasudevan & Shri Jason P Boazit(It)A No.1449/Bang/2015 Assessment Year : 2011-12

disallowances: (i)Deemed Dividend under section 2(22)(e) - Rs.3,30,00,000/- (ii) Disallowance under section 40(a)(i) - Rs. 8,18,734/- (iii) Disallowance

MICROFINISH VALVES PVT LTD,HUBLI vs. THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-2(1), HUBLI

In the result, the appeal by the assessee is partly allowed

Bench: Shri N.V. Vasudevan & Shri Inturi Rama Raoassessment Year : 2012-13

deemed dividend u/s.2(22)(e) of the Act cannot be sustained and the said addition is directed to be deleted. The relevant ground of appeal of the Assessee is allowed. 16. The next issue that arises for consideration is with regard to the disallowance

DCIT, BANGALORE vs. SRI. RAJEEV CHANDRASEKHAR, BANGALORE

In the result, the appeal by the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri N.V. Vasudevan & Shri Abraham P. Georgeassessment Year : 2008-09

disallowed the claim of assessee for deduction u/s. 24(1) of the Act on the ground that assessee did not prove with documentary evidence the nexus between the loan taken and acquisition of property. 11. On appeal by the assessee, the CIT(A) gave the following findings:- “4.4 I have considered the appellant’s submissions and the reasons given

WEP PERIPHERALS LTD,BANGALORE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-7(1)(2), BANGALORE

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillaiassessment Year: 2012 – 13

deemed dividend in the hands of the present assessee. 11. Next ground in this appeal is with regard to taxing interest of Rs.3,18,645/- received u/s 244A of the Act. According to the assessee, assessee has not received this amount. As such it cannot be brought to tax. 12. We have heard the rival submissions and perused the materials

M/S. EMBASSY PROPERTY DEVELOPMENTS PRIVATE LIMITED,BANGALORE vs. THE PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, (CENTRAL), BANGALORE

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

deemed dividend under section 2(22)(e) of the Act. 2.6. The Ld. PCIT erred in passing the Impugned Order, inter-alia, on the allegation that the Ld. AO failed to examine/verify and disallow

M/S PERFECTA LIFESTYLE ,BANGALORE vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD-5(2)(3), BANGALORE

In the result appeal filed by assessee stands allowed

Bench: Shri. B.R Baskaran & Smt. Beena Pillaiassessment Year : 2013-14

deemed dividend if any is chargeable to tax in the hands of the Shareholder and not in the hands of the Firm. 4. The Ld. CIT(A) has erred in confirming The relevant tax the addition of Rs. 7,18,628/- made by attributable to the the AO u/s. 40(a)(ia) of the Act without disallowance

SRI RAJESH KUMAR,BANGALORE vs. ACIT, BANGALORE

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is dismissed

Bench: Shri Arun Kumar Garodia & Shri Pavan Kumar Gadaleassessment Year : 2005-06

deemed dividend u/s.2(22)(e) of the Act on the facts and circumstances of the case. 7. The Appellant craves leave to add, alter, delete or substitute any of the grounds urged above. 8. In the view of the above and other grounds that may be urged at the time of the hearing of the appeal, the Appellant prays that

ASST.C.I.T., HUBLI vs. M/S BELLAD & CO, HUBLI

In the result, the appeal filed by the revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri Sunil Kumar Yadav & Shri Inturi Rama Raom/S.Bellad & Co., Vidyanagar, Hubli. … Appellant Pa No: Aabfb6457D Vs. Deputy Commissioner Of Income-Tax, Hubli. … Respondent & Asst. Commissioner Of Income-Tax, Circle 1(1), Hubballi. … Appellant Vs. M/S.Bellad & Co., Vidyanagar, Hubballi. … Respondent Assessee By : Shri C.R.Nulvi, Ca Revenue By : Shri C.N.Bipin, Jcit(Dr) Date Of Hearing : 04/07/2016 Date Of Pronouncement : 27/07/2016 O R D E R Per Inturi Rama Rao, Am : These Are Cross Appeals Filed By The Assessee As Well As The Revenue Directed Against The Order Of The Cit(A), Hubli, Dated 26/02/2015 For The Assessment Year 2010-11. Ita No.1004 & 1029/Bang/2015 Page 2 Of 13 2. Briefly Facts Of The Case Are As Under: The Assessee-Firm Is Engaged In The Business Of Dealers In Hmt Tractors, Spares, Hero Honda Motors-Cycles & Dealing In Sony Products & Also In The Business Of Generation Of Power Through Wind Mills. Return Of Income For The Assessment Year 2010-11 Was Filed On 30/09/2010 Declaring Income Of Rs.51,74,070/-. Against Said Return Of Income, Assessment Was Completed By The Acit, Circle 1(1), Hubli, Vide Order Dated 14/03/2013 Passed Under Section 143(3) Income-Tax Act, 1961 ['The Act' For Short] At A Total Income Of Rs.1,51,04,807/- After Making Several Disallowances. One Of Those Disallowances Relates To Expenditure Incurred On Renovation Of Showroom Of Rs.17,18,671/- Treating It Capital Expenditure Allowed Depreciation At 10%. He Also Made Addition Of Rs.29,02,161/- As Deemed Dividend Under Section 2(22)(E) Of The Act. The Ao Also Disallowed Deduction Under Section 80Ia(5) Of The Act As, According To The Ao, After Setting Off Of Brought Forward Loss, There Was No Eligible Profit For Deduction U/S 80Ia Of The Act.

disallowances relates to expenditure incurred on renovation of showroom of Rs.17,18,671/- treating it capital expenditure allowed depreciation at 10%. He also made addition of Rs.29,02,161/- as deemed dividend

M/S BELLAD & COMPANY,HUBLI vs. DCIT, HUBLI

In the result, the appeal filed by the revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri Sunil Kumar Yadav & Shri Inturi Rama Raom/S.Bellad & Co., Vidyanagar, Hubli. … Appellant Pa No: Aabfb6457D Vs. Deputy Commissioner Of Income-Tax, Hubli. … Respondent & Asst. Commissioner Of Income-Tax, Circle 1(1), Hubballi. … Appellant Vs. M/S.Bellad & Co., Vidyanagar, Hubballi. … Respondent Assessee By : Shri C.R.Nulvi, Ca Revenue By : Shri C.N.Bipin, Jcit(Dr) Date Of Hearing : 04/07/2016 Date Of Pronouncement : 27/07/2016 O R D E R Per Inturi Rama Rao, Am : These Are Cross Appeals Filed By The Assessee As Well As The Revenue Directed Against The Order Of The Cit(A), Hubli, Dated 26/02/2015 For The Assessment Year 2010-11. Ita No.1004 & 1029/Bang/2015 Page 2 Of 13 2. Briefly Facts Of The Case Are As Under: The Assessee-Firm Is Engaged In The Business Of Dealers In Hmt Tractors, Spares, Hero Honda Motors-Cycles & Dealing In Sony Products & Also In The Business Of Generation Of Power Through Wind Mills. Return Of Income For The Assessment Year 2010-11 Was Filed On 30/09/2010 Declaring Income Of Rs.51,74,070/-. Against Said Return Of Income, Assessment Was Completed By The Acit, Circle 1(1), Hubli, Vide Order Dated 14/03/2013 Passed Under Section 143(3) Income-Tax Act, 1961 ['The Act' For Short] At A Total Income Of Rs.1,51,04,807/- After Making Several Disallowances. One Of Those Disallowances Relates To Expenditure Incurred On Renovation Of Showroom Of Rs.17,18,671/- Treating It Capital Expenditure Allowed Depreciation At 10%. He Also Made Addition Of Rs.29,02,161/- As Deemed Dividend Under Section 2(22)(E) Of The Act. The Ao Also Disallowed Deduction Under Section 80Ia(5) Of The Act As, According To The Ao, After Setting Off Of Brought Forward Loss, There Was No Eligible Profit For Deduction U/S 80Ia Of The Act.

disallowances relates to expenditure incurred on renovation of showroom of Rs.17,18,671/- treating it capital expenditure allowed depreciation at 10%. He also made addition of Rs.29,02,161/- as deemed dividend

SURESH ENTERPRISES PRIVATE LIMITED,HUBLI vs. ACIT, HUBLI

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee-company is allowed

Bench: Smt. Asha Vijayaraghavan & Shri Inturi Rama Raom/S.Suresh Enterprises Pvt.Ltd. Akshay Chabbi Corner, Akshay Centre, Gokul Road, Hubli. … Appellant Pa No.Aaccs4691 N Vs. Asst. Commissioner Of Income-Tax, Circle 3(1), Hubli. … Respondent

deemed dividend u/s 2(22)(e). It is evident from the Balance Sheet of Shejawadkar Builders Pvt Ltd, that the Company is not having accumulated profit as per the provisions u/s 2(22)(e). As per the Balance Sheet as on 31/03/2011, the accumulated profit before depreciation is Rs 36,47,236/- as on 31/03/2011. After claiming accumulated depreciation

M/S R R LOGIC SYSTEMS PRIVATE LIMITED ,BANGALORE vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD-5(1)(1), BANGALORE

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is treated as allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri B.R Baskaran & Smt. Beena Pillaiassessment Year : 2013-14

deemed dividend in the hands of the assessee company. Accordingly we set aside the order passed by the ld CIT(A) on this issue and direct the AO to delete the addition. ITA No.1096 /Bang/2018 Page 4 of 6 8. The next issue relates to addition made u/s 40(a)(ia) of the Act. The AR submitted that the assessee

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE-1 , BELLARY vs. SRI SIRWAR BASAVARAJ , BELLARY

In the result appeal filed by revenue stands allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri. B.R Baskaran & Smt. Beena Pillaiassessment Year : 2009-10

deemed dividend under section 2 (22) (e) - Rs.3,51,42,058/- disallowance under section 14 A r.w.r 8D - Rs. 2,84,160/-. 3. Aggrieved